Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sahodari Devi vs Sri Ram Narayan Verma, Tehsildar on 1 September, 2020
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1777 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Sahodari Devi Opposite Party :- Sri Ram Narayan Verma, Tehsildar Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Krishan Mohan Pandey Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has informed the Court that now a new incumbent Sri Doodh Nath Ram has joined on the post of Tehsildar.
Accordingly, he is permitted to implead Sri Doodh Nath Ram, Tehsildar Rasra, District Bareilly as opposite party no. 2 in the array of parties during the course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K. R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The present contempt application has been filed for punishing the Opposite Party for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22.5.2018 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 18515 of 2018 wherein this Court has observed as under :-
"In view of the above, on consent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the second respondent, Tehsildar, Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia to finalize the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act after giving opportunity of hearing to the private respondent no.3, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost. In case any of the party is not cooperating in the aforesaid proceeding, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia would be at liberty to proceed ex-parte against the said incumbent. "
There is already on record an affidavit dated 18.8.2020 filed on behalf of opposite party. Along with the affidavit, order-sheets of the court below has also been filed, which is annexure 1 to the affidavit. Perusal of the order-sheet clearly indicates that except one date, on all other dates the advocates were abstaining from work and on about six dates the court below was not functioning pursuant to COVID 19 Pandemic.
In such view of the matter, I do not find that there is any willful disobedience of the order of the Writ Court by the opposite party and as such I do not find any good ground to entertain the present contempt application when the lawyers themselves are abstaining from work.
However, if the parties are personally present and they move the application that they shall argue in person, opposite party no. 2 shall proceed to comply with the order of the Writ Court.
It is further observed that in case the court below starts functioning normally and the lawyers are not abstaining from work, opposite party no. 2 shall proceed to comply with the order of the Writ Court.
With this observation, the application stands consigned to record.
Order Date :- 1.9.2020 Kuldeep